Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 318 (ALL)

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U. P.

2016-01-22

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. – Counter affidavit filed today by learned A.G.A. is taken on record. 2. This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.268 of 2014, u/s 326, 307 I.P.C., Police Station-Garhmukteshwar, District-Hapur, Sessions Division-Ghaziabad. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 4. Perused the record. 5. The sole submission raised by the counsel for the applicant is that the applicant is languishing behind the bars since 12.8.2014 and has already spent more than one year in jail. No other submission has been raised by the counsel except that the victim himself seems to have been a party in the gay relationship of the two, that is to say between the accused and the victim himself, and therefore has suffered because of his own aberrations and deviated morality. The contention is that the background of such relationship should be treated as an extenuating circumstance mitigating the guilt of the applicant substantially as the assault made by the applicant seems to be the outcome of sheer frustration emanating from a failed gay-relationship of them. It has been urged by the counsel that a liberal view in favour of accused ought to be taken and he be granted the bail. 6. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has brought the attention of the court to the statement of the victim, according to which the applicant is the sole accused who seems to have an anomalously different sexual preference and was in love with the victim Neeraj Kumar. It further transpires from his statement of the victim that the applicant-accused had also proposed to enter into marriage with the victim which was refused by him. Later on it appears that the applicant had called the victim and after taking some alcoholic drinks he again started insisting for marriage which was once again declined by the victim. It was thereafter that the applicant lost his tamper, flung into a mad rage and started assaulting the victim repeatedly by the bottle of the bear causing several injuries on his body which were serious enough to turn him unconscious. When the victim gained consciousness he found several wounds on his person and also saw that his penis had been cut away. When the victim gained consciousness he found several wounds on his person and also saw that his penis had been cut away. Learned A.G.A. has drawn the attention of the Court to the victim's medical examination also which corroborates the ocular version of the incident and it has been found by the doctor that the whole penis was missing as a result of injury caused to him. Apart from this ?rd of the nose was also missing and there were other injuries on the person of the victim also. The medical examination sufficiently and conclusively discloses the grievous nature of injuries and the permanent impairment of body organs. Further submission is that a man may have an altered sexual preference but the act of criminality in which the applicant indulged speaks about his debased perverted proclivities and the crime committed by him is obnoxiously abhorrent and unpardonable both. Learned A.G.A. has further contended that the inhuman emasculation of the victim done by the applicant not only betrays out extreme brutality but also appears to have been done with a calculated object of rendering the victim incapable of having normal sexual relationship with anyone in future and thereby impelling him to act and remain his passive partner in times to come and cater to the lascivious propensities of the accused perpetually. The extreme cruelty indulged into by the accused also makes it sufficiently manifest that he is an incorrigible delinquent who does not care to give even a fig for the pain of others and can go to any extent in order to quench the vulgar appetite of his own sexual aberrations. With the kind of accusation with which the applicant has been charged and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the period of detention cannot be said to be so prolonged which may constitute any good ground to release the applicant on bail. 7. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 8. 7. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected. 8. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. Bail Rejected.